Seeing Sexism

It's not easy to see sexism. It's such a part of our lives it seems invisible. It's in us and outside us. We want not to believe in it---until something---like men making fun of Hillary Clinton, like women making fun of Hillary Clinton---stirs it up. And then something inside our heads shouts: "THERE IT IS AGAIN! I thought--I truly hoped we were past this."

The truth is, we want sexism to be passé. We don't want to keep fighting it. It's so uncool to fight it. We sound so shrill, so whining, so strident, so piercing, so shrewish, so female. For these are all coded adjectives for women you hate. We hate them ourselves. We don't want to be shrill, shrewish, strident, whining, piercing. We want to be cool. We want to hold our own, we want not to waver, not to be high-pitched, not to betray our femaleness, our weakness. And yet our voices are higher than men's and we are less listened to in the agora. We are always tokens.

On most charitable boards I sit, on every prize committee I deliberate, on most writers' panels, I am a token. One woman and seven men, two women and fourteen men, three women and twenty-one men. I hate being a token. I wish it were otherwise. Unlike those nasty women of yesteryear--Clare Boothe Luce, Ilka Chase--the women who inspired The Women--I have no stake in being queen bee. I want a 50--50 world. But the world is not that way. So tedious, old-time feminism must rear its shrieking Medusa head again.

The Greeks got it. Medusa's snaky head, the sex-strike in Lysistrata, Medea's fury in Greek myth and tragedy.

The truth is we have been trying to assert women's rights (and wrongs) for a long time. Too, too long, in fact. No wonder everyone is turned off. From Mary Wollstonecraft to Susan B. Anthony to Eleanor Roosevelt to Germaine Greer to Gloria Steinem is at least two and a half centuries. And before that, Mary Magdalene was smeared by the damned disciples, Cleopatra by Shakespeare, Hatshepsut by all those Egyptian dudes and doubtless even the Sumerian earth goddess. Too fat, too shrill, too monomaniacal, say the cool men. And the cool women echo it.

What? Life begins in the womb? Women are the life force? How unfair! Didn't Samuel Johnson--that old bore, say: "Nature has given women so much power that the law wisely gives her little" The Greek tragedians smeared a lot of women too, but they were shrewder observers of life than our present day guy writers. At least they had the myths to set them straight. So they knew women were fierce from being raped so often and they knew the rapists (usually men) deserved everything they got.

So now we have the cool dudes saying Hillary is dead, the fall of the house of Clinton is here, baby-boomers are so over, don't trust those wrinklies (British for your parents' generation), youth is roaring again, hope is the watchword, Obama has a feminist wife and two cute little girls, he'll fight for us. And the cool chicks echo it: Hillary is over, we have our rights, we have the pill, we have the patch, we have the IUD, we have the vote, we have nannies for our kids, so what about the retrenchment on Roe, so what about the Right to Lifers, so what about my mother's battles? Over and done. Passe. Youth has come in the person of Barack. Male? Not really. Think of his wife. Two for the price of one--like Billary in 1992. But will Ms. Obama be the prez? Not really. Power behind the throne. Same old, same old. We seem to have forgotten that we did this all before.

But it's different this time, say the women of my daughter's generation. We've won the battle. We don't need the White House. Say what? We don't need it? We're past it? We have all heard that before, too. It's an old, old story. Hillary is the establishment? Hillary stole the vote in New Hampshire? Hillary is passé. Hillary is too close to Bill. Hillary is not close enough to Bill. Hillary is calculating. Hillary is cold. Hillary cried. (Actually, she didn't cry -- as Jon Stewart and I pointed out). She just looked human. She showed a teeny bit of vulnerability. UNFAIR! They scream. FEMININE WILES! They scream. The heart of being a woman is to be always in the wrong.

Let's be honest here. We don't know how a female President would act. But we could look around. I know America is a provincial country, but we could look at Germany, Ireland, England, Pakistan, India, Argentina, and Finland--to name a few. We could ask why the USA, out of all the so-called "civilized" countries, is so damned afraid of a woman leader.

We could look at the invisible sexism--as Gloria Steinem has been asking us to do for nearly half a century. We could acknowledge that a multiracial male president with a fierce feminist wife would be great for America, but maybe we should break the invisible gender barrier first. Yes, blacks have been hideously oppressed, but so have women--and black women know this better than white women do. We have been tokens for so long that most of us just take it for granted. The flaying of Hillary Clinton shows us we can take nothing for granted. We need to break that tough, annealed, glass ceiling with the barbed wire over it. And we need to break it now.

If this is the politics of gender, so be it. We need a politics of gender in this country. Obama is a good man who will only get better. Youth is on his side. Perhaps Hillary will appoint him to the Supreme Court where he can counter that embarrassing Clarence Thomas. Perhaps he will be President in 2016 or perhaps, even better, Michelle Obama will be. They have nothing but time.

Hillary's time has come.

Comments

[Thad]

I don't think there's anyone who would dispute that Hillary Clinton has, for years, been the victim of totally unfair and downright vicious sexism.

So why are there people who dispute that there are perfectly valid policy reasons to disagree with her?

You seem to be advocating Clinton as President simply because she is a woman, and I find that awfully hard to swallow -- and logically worthless given that she is hardly the only person running who represents a group that has been historically abused and has never held the Presidency.

Clinton doesn't deserve the sexist attacks she's had to deal with for her entire career. No woman does. And I applaud her strength and grace at dealing with the small-minded people who fight, mock, and belittle her simply because of her sex.

But none of that erases her vote for the war, her repeated votes to continue funding same, her vilification of young people (both directly, through her statement that we don't know the value of hard work, and indirectly, through her scapegoating of video games), her defense of lobbyists, her support of corporate control, and on and on and on.

And if you think all those policy criticisms make me sexist, let me put it another way: our Secretary of State is both female AND African-American. Do you believe she is a good Secretary of State? If not, does that make you sexist and/or racist?

[hope4theflowers]

wow,what a great endorsement of Hillary..the "woman".Too bad it isnt the same as an endorsement of Hillary the "leader" or Hillary the "politician".
Fact is,yes there are the sexists and the racists out there who are doing their damndest to make sure only old white men ever lead America..but..it is no longer the bottom line..imo. There are many of us who believe Hillary just isnt the best choice for our next President.For us,the bottom line is much more complex than just a gender or racial issue.Im sure Jong has noticed that America barely exists anymore as we knew it..while a greater global corporate agenda is emmerging..where no nation is truly sovereign or safe..sadly.Where no worker's rights can compete with corporate profits. We Hillary-doubters wonder is she going to be a shill or not..to be frank.We wonder this about all the candidates.I have compared the stats on donations and Hillary is getting the most from the corporate elite.She sold us down the river with health care by surrendering to big pharms.Then there is the war.The ultimate tragedy that can come from unchecked corporate greed.
Anyways, I think the time has come for change..REAL change..and ironically, Hillary's gender just doesnt isnt enough.This isnt to say I wont vote for her if she wins the primary...of course I will.But not because she is a woman..but because she is still a lesser evil than anything the right has to offer.

[Phife]

If Obama was running on a "first Black president" ticket or his supporters were rallying behind some racial identity politics, he'd be swept out like garbage (See Sharpton and Jackson's presidential campaigns).

This female-identity, choose sides stuff is a bunch of crap. We're all on the same Democrat team. If you like Hillary's positions and you think they're better than Barack's then let that be your argument. If you're main argument is that we need a woman president (any woman!) then you, yourself, are really the one with gender issues.

[Ides]

At some point the demands become old. If someone keeps telling me that women NEED the presidency more than any other disadvantaged group, I'm going to get downright indignant.

As people alternately mocked and applauded Hillary for crying, I turned the channel to listen to people wail about race and how unfair it is that you can't insult or question an African-American. (You know, anymore than you already have by calling him a drug-addicted, Madrassa-raised, Manchurian candidate.)

Enough is enough. People are truly frustrating me by playing absolutely true to form. I understand you support Hillary, but you just don't understand the generation gap.

In the same way that you couldn't get me, a Black man, to vote for a sellout like Alan Keyes, you will not get young educated women to turn out in droves to support Hillary over a candidate who represents their overwhelmingly Progressive interests. A vagina does not automatically make you a Progressive, just ask HALF OF THE FEMALE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

[itsnotmyfault]

Whether or not people want Hillary to be president is often followed by the disclaimer that her gender is not a factor. I do not believe it. A careful review of the commentary regarding her campaign and her qualities are ripe with subtle and not so subtle gender overtones. But most of us are immune to these slights or at least our radar is not finely attuned.

Issues of racism are far easier to detect and therefor engenders an appropriate hew and cry. The perfect example was the Imus incident, where after a clearly racist rant, standard fare for Imus, it was met by an outcry of indignation. What he did was unforgivable and because of his powerful position, his verbal assault would unfairly define the Rutgers team in perpetuity. His temporary dismissal from the air did nothing to rectify the damage which he had done.

And that is the issue with Hillary. When Chris Mathews, a real misogynist of the first order, uses terms like castrating, in his narcissistic oratory on the air, it is casually accepted, often encouraged and lingers in the either in perpetuity. All of these gender based slights do linger and they effectively alter how candidate Hillary is perceived.

And just as the Republicans were able to unfairly tag Al Gore in 2000, with the label of liar, exaggerater, a prevaricater, baggage that was willingly reinforced in the main stream press, these gender based labels become unfair baggage for Hillary. So whether these are consciously retained and applied or reside in the unconscious of the voter, it is impossible for these not to take effect.

[NABNYC]

The author is way too smart to believe her own argument. The logic apparently goes like this: (1) There is sexism in the U.S. and, therefore, (2) anyone who opposes HRC is a sexist.

How about if we use real logic. Which would go more like this: (1) There is sexism in the U.S. and, therefore, (2) people who are against sexism should support progressive candidates who are committed to ending sexism.

I don't like HRC and I don't support her. But it's not because she's a woman. I would have expected to support her because she's a woman, but that was years ago. Since she became a Senator she has primarily acted in concert with the neocons, aligned herself with the ultra-rich and the fascists, solicited and accepted enormous bribes from the wealthiest and most corrupt groups in this country, sold out women, sold out working people.

HRC has never done one thing to help women. She is strictly male-identified, and associates with the most scummy ruthless men in the country including the union-busting creep who's running her campaign. What's she ever done for me? Not a thing.

I understand that the insider, the wealthy, and the elite are rallying around Hillary because she is one of them. But as you lament being the only woman on a "board" I guess you're not flipping burgers to pay the rent.

The rest of us, the outsiders, the working people, those of us who are not on any "boards," want specific proposals about what Hillary will do for us. And her platform shows she will do nothing for us. Every one of her proposals is aimed at pouring billions more of our tax dollars into the corporate coffers of those who are financing her campaign. Drug companies, doctors, hospitals, the defense contractors, insurance industry.

So pack up the pompoms and put away the 1970s "Solidarity" buttons. HRC has never done anything for working people, and she plans to use the presidency to gain further wealth and power for her and her corrupt husband.

Vote Edwards.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

In the '90s people said "Hillary's too liberal ever to be President." She was a feminist icon. Girls I went to high school with had pictures of her on their walls because they wanted to be like her.

Any time a woman gets to where Hillary is today she is some kind of role model. She is powerful; she is successful.

Yet the Hillary Clinton of 2008 isn't the one I had in mind when I used to think how great it would be if she could be our first female President.

New York seemed like a liberal enough state for her to win in without moving right. Though she had to move somewhat to the center in order to earn votes upstate, I still saw Hillary in 2000 the same way I did the '90s.

Then 9/11 happened.

Now, I know it was tough for Hillary to be against the Iraq War when the people of her own state were so angry and traumatized by 9/11.

But since then Hillary has done everything she could do to sound hawkish. Instead of speaking out boldly against the war, she was forging "power-broker" relationships with Republicans behind the scenes. Eventually she did criticize the war, but only its handling (who wouldn't?), and long after criticism became the politically safe thing to do.

Hillary cares about women's rights and children and I believe she would do a lot for them-- but all this progress is nullified if a mother's daughter or son is sent off in a useless war.

There are two Hillarys-- the bellicose Senator Clinton and the feminist icon we wanted to be President. And they just don't match.

[chery]

Erica, can you direct me to a female candidate who hasn't voted consistently with Lieberman over the last 7 years, then? Cause I would love to vote for a female based solely on her gender (cough, cough), if only she didn't vote like a neocon throughout her career! Perhaps that's why I am not sending money to Liz Dole? Or could it simply be, that for all those hard lessons Ms. Clinton has learned at the hands of the great right wing conspiracy, she can't take the tough questions without having to resort to tears? Kind of disengenuious, don't you think? And then there's Hillary's husband, who can't keep his hands off her primary race! Even he can't rust her to do things right! I haven't seen micromanagement like that since the last news cycle from Hugo Chavez! I love Bill Clinton, but I wouldn't give him my car keys if he begged me! I trusted that man once, but as the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice, shame on me!

[chendri887]

I wonder if Erica Jong and Dr. Laura would get along. Methinks not.

[brabc1]

I do suport Hillary. She has fought many of the same battles as me. Young women do not have the historical perspective to realize what is actually going on.

Wake up folks!

Clinton/Obama '08!

Now that's a winning ticket!

[tersan]

This is an irritating argument from a writer who should know better. What is so galling is that the Baby Boomers argue that "her time has come" and that she finally deserves the presidency to continue the glorious battle of Boomer social evolution toward...whatever it is they were supporting.

Perhaps people are resistant to Sen. Clinton because she is the second in a line of dynasties in the White House, in a country that fought hard to remove itself from aristocracy. Maybe they don't like her centrism, or her lack of distinguishing vision. Perhaps they simply can prefer another candidate for reasons that are personal and legitimate.

But no, in the mind of the aging Baby Boomer, everything in this country must reflect the battles they started in the 1960s. When some of us suggest that perhaps these debates are moribund, we get Barney Frank and Erica Jong loudly protesting that THE FIGHT GOES ON and nothing that Boomers every believed in could be extinct.

You whose time has come? Generation X. Get out your Simon & Garfunkel albums, get a new hobby, and please get out of the way.

[nyboomer]

The average male learns quickly to imply that he is superior because he is taller, heavier and possibly more muscular.

As women take over running America through better education and savvier management they will become more threatening and be accused of subverting our society. The churches, which seem to be invariably misogynistic will lead the charge to put women in their place.

[texanna]

Erica, you are totally correct in your observations regarding the sexism that definitely still exists in this country. I think Hillary has another strike against her, too, it's the ageism that kicks in about 40 that makes you not only incapable, but largely invisible. Sometimes I think some people are just pissed off at her because she has forced them to acknowledge her very existence. I have not been a Hillary supporter and have some real problems with her record in the Senate and the sources of most of her money, but I swear, if it's a choice between Obama and Clinton -- I will be supporting her. I only hope that Edwards hangs in there and continues to force his populist positions into the policies of Clinton and Obama.

[xcrunner77]

What did Hillary do during those 8 years in the White House? She won't release the records because there's nothing there. Or there is something there, and it's not good.

If she so's proud of her record then show us what it is!

[glorija]

I am very unpleasantly surprised at the shallowness of this article. We all, particularly women, have to truthfully look at this year's election and discern whether the noise around, and reaction to, Hillary Clinton is about her gender or about Senator Clinton herself. As a woman, I think that the negative reaction has to do with the latter. I actually think highly of Ms. Clinton's competence and hard work as a senator--last SEVEN, not 35, years of her life--but I am very disappointed with the way she is playing the identity-politics-card. I was, in fact, embarrassed for her over the last several days because of a complete lack of virtue in earning her political points.

Ms. Young--when you say
"Obama is a good man who will only get better. Youth is on his side...Perhaps he will be President in 2016 or perhaps, even better, Michelle Obama will be. They have nothing but time."
All I can say: what a historical shortsightedness.

It's time to move beyond cheap divisiveness. Let us all hope that the best one wins. For the better of America, and of the world.